“You know, that got a lot of bad press, but that’s not necessarily a bad argument. I mean, it’s an interesting argument, and it’s something that we took seriously and tried to address as best we could," said Joe Dunman, an attorney for the plaintiffs. "The decision to have children or to engage in any type of sexual activity is a privacy matter.”

The plaintiffs' response filed Monday picks at the governor's contentions (as such filings do), including the procreation argument:

“There is no rational relationship between a state interest in opposite-sex procreation and the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage benefits. Defendant does not explain how denying same-sex couples entry into Kentucky’s marital scheme promotes opposite-sex procreation because he cannot.

"Prohibiting farmers from growing tomatoes in greenhouses does not increase the yield of farmers growing tomatoes in the field," the response adds.

The plaintiffs' response and the governor's May filing are at the bottom of this story.

The governor's attorneys did not return a telephone call and an e-mail message left Tuesday afternoon.

What's Next?

Oral arguments are planned for early August before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio and Michigan, Dunman said.

Same-sex marriage cases from those four states are pending in the Cincinnati-based appeals court. The panel is expected to hear arguments from each state on the same day, he added.

The appeals court may combine the cases. Dunman said he'd expect to have a decision possibly by September. No matter how the appeals court rules, the case is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the matter of whether same-sex marriages can be performed in Kentucky is still pending in District Judge John Heyburn has yet to rule in that portion of the case, called Love v. Beshear. Dunman said Heyburn may wait to see how the appeals court sides on its cases—but Heyburn may also choose to issue an order sooner.